We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Matthew Thompson please sign in and let everyone know.

Use of Juveniles as Covert Human Intelligence Sources

We're waiting for Matthew Thompson to read a recent response and update the status.

Dear Merseyside Police,

I would like to make the following request under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, 2000.

Since at least 2000, the Government has authorised the use of juveniles as Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS), under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

I would like to know how many juvenile CHIS have been used by your force since 2000, if possible disaggregated by age range of child (under 16, and 16 and over), type of crime, and year.

I recognise that data about CHIS operations could potentially allow criminals to determine (or cause them to suspect) that a child has acted against them, posing a risk to children. Therefore if more specific details must be withheld, I would be satisfied with simply knowing how many juvenile CHIS have been used since 2000.

Yours faithfully,

Matthew Thompson

Freedom Of Information, Merseyside Police

Your email to the Merseyside Police Freedom of Information (FOI) in box is
acknowledged.

 

If it contains an initial (new) request under FOI it will be dealt with in
accordance with section 10 of the Act which means that you are entitled to
receive a response no later than 20 working days after the first working
day* on which your request is received.

 

Other arrangements may apply if a fees notice is issued or if the time
period is extended in order that public interest considerations of our
response may take place. Section 10 also allows public authorities to
apply variations to the normal 20 working day timescale in some limited
circumstances.

 

Due to the volume of e-mail correspondence and FOI applications received,
the Force regrets that individual acknowledgement e-mails will not be sent
even if specifically requested.

 

If the correspondence cannot be dealt with as FOI, it will be forwarded
internally and you will be advised of the location. Any related
communication must be direct to the identified location and not the FOI
e-mail address.

 

*The ‘working day’ is defined as any day other than a Saturday, a Sunday,
Christmas Day, Good Friday or a day which is a bank holiday under the
Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in any part of the United Kingdom.
The first reckonable day is the working day after the working day of
receipt.

============================================================

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

If you have received this email in error please notify the sender as soon
as possible.

This footnote confirms that all reasonable steps have been taken to
ensure that this email message has been swept for the presence of
computer viruses.

The views expressed in this communication may not necessarily be the
views of Merseyside Police.

All communications, including telephone calls and electronic messages to
and from Merseyside Police may be subject to monitoring and recording.

============================================================

Freedom Of Information, Merseyside Police

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Thompson

Response Letter - FOI Application DM2018/0958 (please quote in all
correspondence)

I write in connection with your request for information, which was
received by Merseyside Police on 28/08/2018, concerning:

(summary of request) numbers of children under the age of 18 acting as
Covert Human Intelligence Source in each year since 2000

Your request for information has been considered and I am not obliged to
supply the information that you have requested.

Section 17, Freedom of Information Act, 2000, requires Merseyside Police,
when refusing to provide such information (because the information is
exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which:
(a) states that fact,
(b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

Reason for Decision:

In this instance, the duty to comply with Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom
of Information Act, the duty to confirm whether or not the requested
information is held, does not apply by virtue of the following:

Section 23 of the Freedom of Information Act (security bodies)

Section 24 of the Freedom of Information Act (national security)

Section 30 of the Freedom of Information Act (investigations)

Section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act (law enforcement)

Section 38 of the Freedom of Information Act (health and safety)

Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act (personal information)

This communication therefore serves as a Refusal Notice under the FOI
Act.  Please find attached my full Response Table which includes a Public
Interest Test, explaining how the specified exemptions apply in this case.

Complaint Rights

Your attention is drawn to the information following this response, which
details your rights of review and of complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please write
to or e-mail me at the below address, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Mr D May
Disclosure Analyst
FOI Team
Data Access Unit
Merseyside Police
PO BOX 59
LIVERPOOL L69 1JD
E-mail: [1][Merseyside Police request email]

Making a complaint or appeal about your Freedom of Information response

We accept that sometimes you may not agree with the decision we’ve made
about your Freedom of Information request. If this is the case there is an
internal complaints procedure that should be followed.

You should make your complaint in writing to:

FOI Team

Data Access Unit
Merseyside Police

PO BOX 59

LIVERPOOL

L69 1JD

It should detail:

What the original request was

The nature of the complaint

Why you feel you should have received more information

Your complaint will be fully investigated and will be dealt with by a
staff member who was not involved in the original decision. We will write
to you to advise the outcome of your complaint.

If you are dissatisfied with the results of your complaint you have the
right to appeal to the Information Commissioner. He can be contacted at:

The Office of the Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF

More information is available from the Information Commissioner's website

[2]http://www.ico.org.uk

 

 

 

============================================================

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

If you have received this email in error please notify the sender as soon
as possible.

This footnote confirms that all reasonable steps have been taken to
ensure that this email message has been swept for the presence of
computer viruses.

The views expressed in this communication may not necessarily be the
views of Merseyside Police.

All communications, including telephone calls and electronic messages to
and from Merseyside Police may be subject to monitoring and recording.

============================================================

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Merseyside Police request email]
2. http://www.ico.org.uk/

Dear Merseyside Police,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Merseyside Police's handling of my FOI request 'Use of Juveniles as Covert Human Intelligence Sources'.

I do not see how my simple request for the numbers of children involved since 2000 is able to be withheld under the exemptions you cite.

You cite the following sections as reasons for not responding to my request:
Section 23(5) Information supplied by, or concerning, certain Security Bodies;
Section 24(2) National Security
Section 30(3) Investigations by virtue of Section 30(2)
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement
Section 38(2) Health and Safety
Section 40(5) Personal Information

If I might take them by turn.

Section 23 applies to information supplied by or relating to security bodies. If I were requesting details of the individuals concerned this might apply. As I am asking merely for a headcount, this will be information held by your police force and not supplied by the security bodies. I also feel that the "relates to" exemption in this case does not apply, as the connection is too remote.

Sections 23 and 24 are mutually exclusive, and so cannot both apply to the same information. As I think 23 doesn't apply, I also suggest that 24 doesn't either. For Section 24 to apply there must be a real possibility that disclosure would undermine national security. This is manifestly not the case. I simply want numbers. Nothing more.

Section 30, as you will know, must be subject to a public interest test. It is my strong view that the use of children as spies may breach the Human Rights Act and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. As such there is a strong public interest in disclosure. There would be no harm in releasing to me a simple number, over a period of 18 years. I will discuss this in further detail below.

Section 31. I simply do not see how the disclosure of a simple number would have any prejudicial impact on any of the areas listed in this Section. Again I repeat, I am asking not for detailed information on dates, or any personal information. As detailed in my request, I am asking for a simple minimum, of a number of children used over a period of 18 years. It is not at all clear to me how the disclosure of that number will have any negative impact, other than from a PR standpoint, which is not what the exemptions exist for.

Section 38 does not apply in my view for much the same reason. Asking for a number that could relate to any investigation over a period of nearly two decades would not endanger any individual. It is far too broad a period of time, and too limited in detail to identify any individual. Again, as it is a qualified exemption, I believe the public interest in disclosure is much greater than the negligible risk to an individual.

Finally, Section 40. I cannot see any reasonable definition whereby the disclosure of a headcount constitutes personal information. I believe this has been misapplied.

In light of all of the above, I would ask you to reconsider, and please disclose to me the number of children used as CHIS from the year 2000 to the present.

Yours faithfully,

Matthew Thompson

Freedom Of Information, Merseyside Police

Your email to the Merseyside Police Freedom of Information (FOI) in box is
acknowledged.

 

If it contains an initial (new) request under FOI it will be dealt with in
accordance with section 10 of the Act which means that you are entitled to
receive a response no later than 20 working days after the first working
day* on which your request is received.

 

Other arrangements may apply if a fees notice is issued or if the time
period is extended in order that public interest considerations of our
response may take place. Section 10 also allows public authorities to
apply variations to the normal 20 working day timescale in some limited
circumstances.

 

Due to the volume of e-mail correspondence and FOI applications received,
the Force regrets that individual acknowledgement e-mails will not be sent
even if specifically requested.

 

If the correspondence cannot be dealt with as FOI, it will be forwarded
internally and you will be advised of the location. Any related
communication must be direct to the identified location and not the FOI
e-mail address.

 

*The ‘working day’ is defined as any day other than a Saturday, a Sunday,
Christmas Day, Good Friday or a day which is a bank holiday under the
Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in any part of the United Kingdom.
The first reckonable day is the working day after the working day of
receipt.

============================================================

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

If you have received this email in error please notify the sender as soon
as possible.

This footnote confirms that all reasonable steps have been taken to
ensure that this email message has been swept for the presence of
computer viruses.

The views expressed in this communication may not necessarily be the
views of Merseyside Police.

All communications, including telephone calls and electronic messages to
and from Merseyside Police may be subject to monitoring and recording.

============================================================

Jaymes Vivien, Merseyside Police

Dear Mr Thompson,

 

Ref: FOI DM2018/0958

 

I acknowledge receipt of your email received today requesting that
Merseyside Police review its response to your request for information
concerning:

 

Use of Juveniles as Covert Human Intelligence Sources since 2000.

 

I understand that you have raised a query regarding the below exemptions
used in our response.

Section 23 applies to information supplied by or relating to security
bodies. If I were requesting details of the individuals concerned this
might apply. As I am asking merely for a headcount, this will be
information held by your police force and not supplied by the security
bodies. I also feel that the "relates to" exemption in this case does not
apply, as the connection is too remote.

Sections 23 and 24 are mutually exclusive, and so cannot both apply to the
same information. As I think 23 doesn't apply, I also suggest that 24
doesn't either. For Section 24 to apply there must be a real possibility
that disclosure would undermine national security. This is manifestly not
the case. I simply want numbers. Nothing more.

Section 30, as you will know, must be subject to a public interest test.
It is my strong view that the use of children as spies may breach the
Human Rights Act and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. As such
there is a strong public interest in disclosure. There would be no harm in
releasing to me a simple number, over a period of 18 years. I will discuss
this in further detail below.

Section 31. I simply do not see how the disclosure of a simple number
would have any prejudicial impact on any of the areas listed in this
Section. Again I repeat, I am asking not for detailed information on
dates, or any personal information. As detailed in my request, I am asking
for a simple minimum, of a number of children used over a period of 18
years. It is not at all clear to me how the disclosure of that number will
have any negative impact, other than from a PR standpoint, which is not
what the exemptions exist for.

Section 38 does not apply in my view for much the same reason. Asking for
a number that could relate to any investigation over a period of nearly
two decades would not endanger any individual. It is far too broad a
period of time, and too limited in detail to identify any individual.
Again, as it is a qualified exemption, I believe the public interest in
disclosure is much greater than the negligible risk to an individual.

Finally, Section 40. I cannot see any reasonable definition whereby the
disclosure of a headcount constitutes personal information. I believe this
has been misapplied.

 

An internal review will be undertaken surrounding our FOI response - this
will be considered independently by the Information Assurance Coordinator.
The review will be conducted in accordance with the Merseyside Police
review procedure and every effort will be made to have a response to you
no later than the 25/10/2018 (20 working days from receipt of internal
review request, as advocated by the ICO).

 

However, if it becomes clear that the review will not be completed by this
date you will be contacted.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Vivien Jaymes
Data Access Manager
Force Website   [1]www.merseyside.police.uk
Force Twitter @merseypolice

 

============================================================

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

If you have received this email in error please notify the sender as soon
as possible.

This footnote confirms that all reasonable steps have been taken to
ensure that this email message has been swept for the presence of
computer viruses.

The views expressed in this communication may not necessarily be the
views of Merseyside Police.

All communications, including telephone calls and electronic messages to
and from Merseyside Police may be subject to monitoring and recording.

============================================================

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/www.merseyside.police.uk

Boyham Ian Frank, Merseyside Police

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Thompson,

 

Further to the Data Access Manager’s email of 28/09/18 acknowledging
receipt of your request for Merseyside Police to conduct an internal
review of your Freedom of Information, I confirm that I have completed my
review.

 

You requested: (summary) Use of Juveniles as Covert Human Intelligence
Sources since 2000.

 

Decision

I have decided to uphold the original decision.

 

Section 17, Freedom of Information Act, 2000, requires Merseyside Police,
when refusing to provide such information (because the information is
exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which:

(a) states that fact,

(b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and

(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

 

Reason for Decision: Please see attached response table following internal
review.

 

Complainant Rights:

Should you disagree with this decision you have a further right of appeal
to the Information Commissioner the contact details for whom are below.

 

The Office of the Information Commissioner

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire SK9 5AF

More information is available from the Information Commissioner's website

http://www.ico.gov.uk

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ian.

 

Ian Boyham
Information Assurance Coordinator PR
Direct Line Tel:+441517778317
Force Website   [1]www.merseyside.police.uk
Force Twitter @merseypolice

P Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this
email?

============================================================

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

If you have received this email in error please notify the sender as soon
as possible.

This footnote confirms that all reasonable steps have been taken to
ensure that this email message has been swept for the presence of
computer viruses.

The views expressed in this communication may not necessarily be the
views of Merseyside Police.

All communications, including telephone calls and electronic messages to
and from Merseyside Police may be subject to monitoring and recording.

============================================================

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/www.merseyside.police.uk

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Matthew Thompson please sign in and let everyone know.